Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPLv3's Implications Hitting Home For Lawyers

Posted by kdawson on from the software-wants-to-be-free dept.

Specter writes "The GPL version 3 is getting some attention in legal circles, especially as it relates to its interaction with proprietary software and patents. Edmund J. Walsh penned an article for Law.com discussing the GPLv3 and the risks it poses for hardware and software companies."

8 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. Article Worthless FUD by Stanistani · · Score: 0, Troll

    I read the article. In the first paragraph, the author acknowledges that the scope of the article does not include the changes between GPLv2 and v3.

    Reading the rest of the article, the author does not seem to understand the basis of the GPL, and he engages in needless scaremongering.

    It's a clueless work.

    --
    You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
  2. GPL 3 by Archangel+Michael · · Score: -1, Troll

    the GPL 3 license is NOT free software. It significantly restricts CERTAIN people from using it, thus is clearly NOT FREE.

    GPL 3 is nothing more than anti corporate licensing, and has significantly diminished us all.

    BSD is truly free license, and GPL 2 closely follows. GPL 3 is a huge step backwards, IMHO.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:GPL 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      the GPL 3 license is NOT free software. It significantly restricts CERTAIN people from using it, thus is clearly NOT FREE.

      GPL 3 is nothing more than anti corporate licensing, and has significantly diminished us all.

      BSD is truly free license, and GPL 2 closely follows. GPL 3 is a huge step backwards, IMHO. Amen!
    2. Re:GPL 3 by TypoNAM · · Score: -1, Troll

      Please kindly take that FUD and shove it right up your ass. The whole point of GPL v3 was to ensure your freedom of software modification to the hardware of which you own that uses GPL v3 code! So, sure yeah corps can use BSD software, but they sure as hell won't give a damn about giving anything back to the community and don't care if you want to make any modifications to it. They'll keep you locked out of it cause it's their Intellectual property and you as a consumer have no rights as far as they're concerned. Also look at it this way you've got some hardware which is getting old, but is still useful. The vendor dropped support and couldn't possibly care less about you unless you purchase their current line of products. Because they used BSD or any other code that uses a license of which doesn't force them to allow you to make personal modifications to your own hardware (that you bought and paid for) you're pretty much screwed on getting anything resolved.

      --
      This space is not for rent.
    3. Re:GPL 3 by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

      It prevents 'other people' from RESTRICTING you from using it. If YOU are those 'other people', it prevents you from preventing other people from using it. Actually this is where you are wrong. If the source is available, then you can use the software anyway you want. Once the source is open and free, any and all restrictions on it have gone.

      If I've taken the time and effort to make a nice product using a bunch of pieces of software, and include some of my own, and package it up, sealed and ready for the end user, including code to prevent modification, exactly how am I restricting your use of that same GPL2 code, if I give you the source for all the GPL2 code?

      The only think I'm restricting is you modifying the code, and running in on the device I created. You can use the same code, make a similar device and use the code all you want. The code is free, your use is not restricted except for the product I created (and you bought).

      If you don't like the terms, don't buy a Tivo, take the Tivo software and make your own and hack that. After all, you have all the GPL2 code in your hands, you should be able to DIY, should you not?

      This is nothing more than whiney cry babies wanting to run home with the ball because the game isn't going their way.
      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:GPL 3 by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

      If by "RMS doesn't like" you mean "subvert the intended goals of the GPL", then I agree with your prediction. Is that supposed to be a surprise? Tell me exactly where Tivo (good example) restricted the code's (use, distribution or modification)?

      The only restriction was you couldn't do it on a Tivo. Boo Hoo. Make your own Tivo-like device, using the same software. You have the code, it shouldn't be too hard.

      But noooooo, that isn't good enough. RMS and people like him think they know better than everyone else, and want to dictate their terms. Well guess what, people are going to stop using stuff if they can't use it the way they want.

      The end result is that people are going to stop using GPL3 software, because they aren't going to run to RMS to ask his permission. With GPL2, the conditions were simple, and nobody needed permission to use anything. Only thing that mattered was the code.

      Don't like Tivo cause you can't "hack" it? Then don't buy one. Build your own instead, using the EXACT SAME GPL software Tivo uses. How come this isn't good enough for people like RMS is beyond me.

      Don't tell me the code isn't free. It is.
      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Victory for Stallman by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0, Troll

    The GPL is now a known, accepted threat. It is a force to be reckoned with, an enemy to plan carefully against.

    Good work, Stallman.

    --
    Support my political activism on Patreon.
  4. Re:Lawyer he may be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    nigger fucker